Shorthaul Flights: Full Service Indirect Vs. Low Cost Direct

Most major, full service airlines around the world operate a ‘hub and spoke’ route network model. This means that on most of their flights, you will be flying either to or from one of their hubs.

You might be lucky enough to have a direct (and ideally non-stop) flight, especially if you live near a hub, otherwise you may have to connect, at least once. Connecting can add significant time to your journey because the connection may not be in a straight ‘as the crow flies’ line, adding to the flight times, and the layover at the hub may be significant.

Delta: Hundreds of routes but most are to or from a hub

Low cost carriers have realised this and will either consider any airport they base a plane in overnight to be a ‘hub,’ or only operate non-stop routes with no option for passengers to connect. Ryanair boss Michael O’Learly once famously said ‘passengers will fly from nowhere to somewhere, or somewhere to nowhere but not nowhere to nowhere.’ So provided they can operate a non-stop flight from either a ‘real’ airport or to a ‘real’ airport, passengers don’t mind where they begin and end their journey.

Saving time and money with a direct flight

I’ve been interested by the business model of Allegiant, who take this to another level by only operating non-stop flights on obscure routes where no non-stop flights exist. This is a clever niche market to tap into. This is because it’s difficult to turn down the convenience and efficiency of a non-stop flight, regardless of the carrier vs. a time consuming and perhaps risky connection.

Some connection options will add significant time to your journey

The lure of the low cost

I fly short-haul every few weeks, primarily for weekends away. As I’ve written about before, low cost carriers are perfect for this purpose. The 48 hours I have for a weekend trip can quickly be reduced significantly if I need to add in a connection, and full service carriers in Europe with buy-on-board aren’t much different to low cost carriers in economy anyway.

I particularly like the opportunity to fly to obscure destinations that the full cost carriers might only fly to once per day (meaning potentially a frustrating overnight stop in a major hub city) or not fly to at all. A few years ago I flew non-stop from London to Timisoara, Romania for the weekend on a low cost carrier. While I wouldn’t really recommend the destination (ha!), I would never have had the chance to go there for a weekend had I stuck to full service carriers and awkward connections.

The thought of sacrificing your status benefits and the ability to earn miles with your preferred full service carrier to spend two hours flying non-stop on a low cost carrier might be unpalatable. However, if I’m in economy and it’s a choice between this or two flights of two hours or more to and from their full service hub, I think I’d rather than quicker option and even Ben has been giving it a try.

Delta’s hub at Salt Lake City Airport

When I choose to connect

I don’t always choose the low cost option. Where a full service carrier operates the same non-stop flight at a comparable time for a comparable cost, I will always choose the full service. This is regardless of whether I hold status with that airline or their partner, or not.

Last year I needed to fly from New York to Calgary, Canada. That is a fairly long way. The cheapest option was a non-stop flight on a WestJet 737. But for a 5.5 hour flight I just couldn’t stomach the thought. More than 5 hours is about my maximum preferred tolerance for a narrowbody flight.

So for this scenario, I ended up paying slightly more for a connecting flight on Air Canada via Toronto. Yes it wasn’t as efficient as a non-stop flight. But I was happy to have a short break in Toronto, stretch my legs, visit a Priority Pass lounge, and earn some miles in the process.

My connection was actually a logical straight line

When things go wrong

One of the biggest benefits of flying on a major full service carrier to or from their hub is if there is problem with your flight. If the flight is cancelled or you miss your connection, on a major airline on a popular route there’s a good chance there will be another flight leaving in a short amount of time that they will transfer you to.

I have had pretty good luck with the reliability of my low cost flights. The only cancelled flight on a smaller carrier I’ve ever had was on Virgin America, and they rebooked me on a (connecting) flight the next day and paid for my accommodation that evening.

If my Ryanair or easyJet flight was cancelled I would probably be wishing I had chosen a connecting flight on a full service carrier but touch wood that hasn’t happened yet. You can be sure if it does I’ll be writing about that experience here!

Bottom line

For longhaul travel I’m all about comfort and I’ll take nonsensical routings to maximize the experience and try out new airlines or products.

For quick trips where time and value is more important, I prefer a non-stop flight at a convenient time, regardless of the airline.

Do you sacrifice your status to take a non-stop flight on a low cost airline?

Conversations (44)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Matt Guest

I am PHL based. One thing that weighs heavily against me booking an LCC or ULCC is the gate location. Almost all of their flights are out of E or F. The Centurion lounge is between A-East and A-West, however. Although all of PHL is connected airside so that reaching E or F for your flight is possible it is not a pleasant experience (even if you take a tarmac bus). AA on the other hand flies almost exclusively out of the A and B gates and is very short walk from the Centurion lounge. Plus 75% of PHL flights are AA.

0
‼ 0
Tim Guest

James, I think you're a bit nuts for this routing but to each his own. YYC is AC's smallest hub. It is WestJet's (WS) largest (goes back and forth between YYC and YYZ). AC runs one, maybe two wide-bodies a day and those are usually old 763s. The rest are 737s or old Airbus planes. Unless you're sitting in the J pods, the seats at not going to be much better and will have close to the same pitch as a 737. Connecting via YYZ adds potential of delays; you have to clear customs in YYZ and then go back into the domestic flight area. Fly non-stop and you clear in YYC very quickly. If you really hate the pitch, you can often upgrade to premium economy at check-in with WS for a longer flight. Then again, I fly J a fair bit and I usually pick the most direct (i.e. lowest duration) route because my time is important to me.

0
‼ 0
Myles Guest

@ James Thank you mate! for that extensive comment. But regarding my expectations..you are doing it great!..as you mentioned it is only subtlle differences..the brothers and sisters across the atlantic should not be so hard on you and do not take them so seriously.. some of them still think the middle of the world is somewhere in Kansas! an having a relationship with their cousins is God given!..So have some emphathy and understanding for their shortcomings! As you have said, it is impossible to please every yankees, dixies, poms, aussies and the rest of the bunch..they are not just acquainted with the sensation in having other than @Lucky giving them the view outside the motherland..so it is new territory for them as well..keep the good work and stick to your Aussie style..it won't kills us here!..well, for some..maybe..

0
‼ 0
Myles Guest

@James the locals are starting to show their colours! they are appalled about your Australian/English literacy. Now they want to americanize you! No more mates from now on, you are a dude now! Now more direct but be a non-stop! No more Tim Tam , from now in its Hersheys...eh no!..Tim Tam has to stay! the rest you can take over!

0
‼ 0
Bagoly Guest

@Daniel M In Europe there are now hardly any direct flights which are not non-stop. I have been on three in my life, and two of those ended outside Europe. Most Europeans will have never been on one. This is partly due to higher population density (the lower density in Scandinavia is why there may be some there) Other factors are probably: better train network, competition from the LCCs, and possibly passenger indignation at being sold "direct" when it was not non-stop. So in British English (and European Globish) "direct" means "non-stop". For similar trans-atlantic differences in meaning see "bill", "pants", "pavement" etc @James: As this site's readership is probably mainly American, I suggest that consistent American usage is a good idea for articles here. @Paolo: I suspect that in Africa there are quite a few direct flights with stops? What is the terminology there?

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member